If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Age 78 Power Rankings

I've omitted the TM section because its always dubious at best, and without proper intel about science, getting the estimated mods right wouldn't be easy.

I have dropped science from this one entirely, as such I also dropped wages, and honor as well since no more Bocan. THESE DO INCLUDE SPELLS; GP, Fanat, IA(reflected in econ section), and TW. With these builds @100% wages most races are -1 GCpa per tick; Halfling is -3.3, Elf -8.8, Human +2.5, and Orc +0.4 GCpa...

First off, I like your rankings Persain and RattleHead. I've been looking them over each age start with interest. And Ethans of course, but...

There are some problems, or pro's and con's with your approaches to power ranking. And I'd like to hear a discussion on how these issues could be solved, if at all?

Rattlesnake:

I'll be focusing on the military. I have some objections to the other categories, but most of all think it's impossible to weight them into a combined chart - since it more than anything depends on how they're played as a kd. So, I won't discuss that.

So, on your military power ranking:

Pros: Nw taken into account in some fashion, lots of parameters (especially taking your other tables into account), modded mwpa and mtpa instead of raw numbers (essential imo if comparing capacity as attackers).
Cons: Some arbitrary numbers (ppa, off:spec troop ratios), nw not taken enough into account (just one category amongst others in a simple military/nw category), the weighting in the aggregate category is of course arbitrary too, and must be.

You have equalised the races over land and ppa. Land seems logical, but to me ppa seems a bit arbitrary - and results in widely different and in some cases strange provinces. If you want to equalise over a a sustainable draft in some way, wouldn't income perhaps be a better equaliser? 0 gc income or something - since that would be an underlying factor to the chosen draft. Draft rates in themselves aren't really very interesting, since you don't stop on a certain PPA across the board for all races, but because you reach some sort of limiting factor..

Persain:

You have a classic Ethan rankings: equalising along a fixed nw is interesting! The second equaliser is 54 raw def, which I'm not certain about. So,

Pros: Nw centered
Cons: Is that mTPA and mWPA? Otherwise that's a major flaw. A fixed raw dpa seems a bit odd... perhaps more so when equalising along a fixed nw. Dunno why this disturbs me really, but it does! Just seems arbitrary.. hmm. Perhaps u have a great explanation for it though!

And now to my rankings:

I equalise along land and fixed off and or def. Doing both via a chart. To me that makes more sense. I don't get a #1, but rather a view of in which brackets different races are in the top/bottom. Like this age with Orc being strongest (highest opa) at very low DPA values. Elf being strongest in the mid section. Fae having highest off at very high DPA values. A more dynamic view imo, instead of arbitrarily fixed military ratios or fixed def levels etc. Instead you get a visual of where different hitters peaks. Another equaliser I run is 0 ppa. The benefit of this is that it weights heavily towards military, a power ranking displaying the max you can get out of your military.

Biggest con of my ranking imo is that it doesn't take NW into account in any way. Nw efficiency is a big thing, and my lil chart give crap all intel on that (if we ignore the lil box that shows total nw on a fixed dpa level for all races - but lets ignore that).

So. Besides being interested to hear comments on my comments, I also wonder how you would go about incorporating an nw analysis into dynamic chart, any ideas?

I would argue that I don't limit my drafting to my income either, though. Often as attacker I expect to be fed wages in war. I could even argue that I do draft to the same PPA across the board on attaackers (as high as possible) and so then it comes down to the ratio, which 2:1 is arbitrary indeed, but reflects also my preferences as an attacker I suppose.

I also agree that outside of the military figures its very tricky to get the weight right, or to make sure you dont account for things twice or miss them etc... The weights I use on my combined are also arbitrary, I approach this from the point of view of strictly warring setup, so this influences how I value certain things I am sure.

I adjusted the weight of Sustain, because while Avian does tend to burn out, it was sending Avian to the bottom of the heap perennially. This didn't ring true to me so I felt I should tweak it a bit for the purposes of the combined chart.

Similarly, I found Dwarf was being perennially overrated by virtue of its econ advantages which are many, but from my point of view are not quite as valuable in a WAR setting to a heavy attacker, which is what I am focused on in my analysis. Turtle Power was another recent addition for similar purposes, those with a strong defensive Elite were not being valued in my MP%.

Certainly my opinion gets into these rankings in this way. I have not changed the weights since I found a set of values that I felt was decently representative of its respective Age's values. I don't plan on adjusting them unless some future changes were to put the rankings at odds with reality(in my opinion), or on expert suggestion.